Here is a NS article from 10 years ago.
newscientist.com
/snippet
As Shine says of Lindzen: "He always falls back on uncertainty. Sure there is uncertainty, but he then claims that all the uncertainty will work in his direction. Why should it?"
Parker admits that "there are a lot of things we don't know". But, he adds, that doesn't disprove global warming, or the models. "Sceptics tend to elevate one element in a complex system above all the others. You cannot do that, however clever you are. You have to integrate every influence to find out what they might mean when all acting together. And the models are the only way of doing that."
Is there any common ground? Of all people, Michaels insists there could be. "When it comes to it, the modellers and the sceptics are not so far apart," he says. Indeed, if pressed, Michaels, Lindzen, Spencer and other sceptics suggest a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere would raise average temperatures by between 1 and 1.5 °C. And 1.5 °C is the bottom end of the modellers' range of predictions.
But Michaels has, as ever, a twist. "You can't make a case for a global apocalypse out of a 1.5 °C warming. It destroys the issue. If politics weren't driving this we could all meet on common ground."
But, of course, he thinks the politics is all on the other side.
/end snippet.
Face it, Lindzen won't admit to Global warming, no matter what the evidence is. He is a perma sceptic. |
